Lightning Field | Negation Field

[OldTrees]

And skills. Please, add skills.

Do you think that if I added skills it would be too OP and I should raise the cost by 1 ?  Also, what do others think about adding skills, because I'm definitely considering it.  Furthermore, Jyiber noted that he didn't like the name.  Should I change it?  Maybe to "Static Field" or something like that?

I think that being able to counter anything that isn't an attack would be too powerful. (aka would require too high a cost to be balanced)
I think that being only able to counter spells and activated abilities would still be too powerful.
Combine with Lobotomizer and PC if activated abilities are still a bother.

PS: Creatures are not Summons. They are not considered spells. (Same goes for Permanents)
This would possibly cancel Parallel Universe but would not prevent playing a creature.

Ok, so would changing the wording to "Shield: 25% chance to counter opponent's creatures and spells," be better?  In this case, permanents and abilities would still be active, and like you said, lobo and PC can take care of that.  Or is that still to powerful?

How powerful do you think a 25% to kill creatures before they get a single attack would be?

Idt it would be more powerful then dims imo BUT if you think it's OP I feel like it could work if it only affects creatures (giving PC a 100% chance to destroy it) OR having it affect only spells at a lowered cost (if I don't lower the cost for a spells only version I feel like it becomes pretty UP, since it provides no damage reduction).

Quick note: Costs can be cheap thru expensive. Effects can be weak thru powerful. Neither cost nor effect alone can be UP, OP or balanced.

I think the cheaper/more probable spell only version would be better. (There are a lot of powerful frequently used spells like Deflagration, Supernova, Reverse Time, Adrenaline or Fractal)

[Vangelios]

And skills. Please, add skills.

Do you think that if I added skills it would be too OP and I should raise the cost by 1 ?  Also, what do others think about adding skills, because I'm definitely considering it.  Furthermore, Jyiber noted that he didn't like the name.  Should I change it?  Maybe to "Static Field" or something like that?

I think that being able to counter anything that isn't an attack would be too powerful. (aka would require too high a cost to be balanced)
I think that being only able to counter spells and activated abilities would still be too powerful.
Combine with Lobotomizer and PC if activated abilities are still a bother.

PS: Creatures are not Summons. They are not considered spells. (Same goes for Permanents)
This would possibly cancel Parallel Universe but would not prevent playing a creature.

Ok, so would changing the wording to "Shield: 25% chance to counter opponent's creatures and spells," be better?  In this case, permanents and abilities would still be active, and like you said, lobo and PC can take care of that.  Or is that still to powerful?

How powerful do you think a 25% to kill creatures before they get a single attack would be?

but Oldtrees, do not you think that the dimensional shield actually better?

[OldTrees]

How powerful do you think a 25% to kill creatures before they get a single attack would be?

but Oldtrees, do not you think that the dimensional shield actually better?

Yes and No.
Dimensional shield is a better designed card than negating ~1/4 of an opponent's deck.
Dimensional Shield is not more powerful than negating ~1/4 of an opponent's deck.

[jawdirk]

Against creatures this is clearly worse than fog shield (absent PC). It is like a weak fog shield with a small amount of card advantage built in (but way less than hourglass). But it also works against spells which puts in the league of dusk mantle.

[OldTrees]

Against creatures this is clearly worse than fog shield (absent PC). It is like a weak fog shield with a small amount of card advantage built in (but way less than hourglass). But it also works against spells which puts in the league of dusk mantle.

What is a creature? A creature is the Attack (Damage per turn), HP (duration and catapult damage), Body (sacrifice) and abilities. Fog would block 40% of the attack. Countering would block all of 25% of creatures. The scope of the effect is greater and thus has more impact per percent. If we take into account the claims that Fog is OP relative to Dusk and the PC resistance, I am not sure if your comparison is accurate or informative. Would you please expand on this point.

My major critique with the comparison is that Miss Chance is soft CC and thus reversed by PC. Countering creatures would be hard CC and thus not reversible by PC.
Simplified example: Assume average results of playing a photon per turn vs 25% miss chance and 25% counter. PC happens on turn 5. Number is damage dealt that turn.
Miss Chance: .25 / .50 / .75 / 1.00 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 [Total: 28.5]
Counter:        .25 / .50 / .75 / 1.00 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 [Total: 16.5]

[jawdirk]

Dimensional Shield is not more powerful than negating ~1/4 of an opponent's deck.

I think this exaggerates the power of this card. It's less than 1/4 because much of the game is over before it comes out. Also, much of your opponent's deck is probably pillars, which are unaffected if this gets blown up with PC.

[jawdirk]

If we take into account the claims that Fog is OP relative to Dusk and the PC resistance, I am not sure if your comparison is accurate or informative. Would you please expand on this point.

I meant ignoring casting cost, the effect only. As far as I know the only difference between Fog shield and dusk's effect is 40% vs. 50%?

My major critique with the comparison is that Miss Chance is soft CC and thus reversed by PC. Countering creatures would be hard CC and thus not reversible by PC.

You should also make the other comparison: If the shields come out after four turns of playing photons, this card does nothing, and fog protects against them normally. I think this is the more relevant comparison perhaps, because of the high casting cost. You are right that there is some inherent card advantage in this card, but it is actually pretty tiny. It is only 25% of the opponent's played creatures/spells. I would estimate the opponent plays 2 cards per turn in a high level deck? So conservatively it is around .5 cards per turn?

[OldTrees]

If we take into account the claims that Fog is OP relative to Dusk and the PC resistance, I am not sure if your comparison is accurate or informative. Would you please expand on this point.

I meant ignoring casting cost, the effect only. As far as I know the only difference between Fog shield and dusk's effect is 40% vs. 50%?
Nevermind then. I had assumed that you were not ignoring casting cost. We are on the same page.

My major critique with the comparison is that Miss Chance is soft CC and thus reversed by PC. Countering creatures would be hard CC and thus not reversible by PC.

You should also make the other comparison: If the shields come out after four turns of playing photons, this card does nothing, and fog protects against them normally. I think this is the more relevant comparison perhaps, because of the high casting cost. You are right that there is some inherent card advantage in this card, but it is actually pretty tiny. It is only 25% of the opponent's played creatures/spells. I would estimate the opponent plays 2 cards per turn in a high level deck? So conservatively it is around .5 cards per turn?

Good point. I find myself doubting my initial reaction to this card. [+82 rep]
I see no sufficient argument against this affecting creatures.

[Chapuz]

It would be also thematic to change it to skills and spells, taking out summons. Lower cost, higher % and yay a SoFo counter!

[Annele]

CURATOR COMMENT

This card will not be permitted into the Crucible due to one or more of the following errors:

• Table filled out incorrectly.

Correct these errors as soon as possible and feel free to submit again when ready.

Thank you. ^_^

Remember to use the word, not the icon, in the Element section - Aether, not - but use for the Cost.
If the card is a spell or a non-weapon shield, the atk|hp section should be left blank; also, if there is no series, the 'series' section should be left blank.
Thankyou.

[Annele]

CURATOR COMMENT

This card will not be permitted into the Crucible due to one or more of the following errors:

• Table filled out incorrectly.

Correct these errors as soon as possible and feel free to submit again when ready.

Thank you. ^_^


Remember, if the card costs elemental quanta (not ), then this must be expressed with the correct quanta symbol. (eg. 7 )
Also, please only fill out the 'TYPE' section with either Creature, Spell or Permanent, nothing more or less. Anything else should be expressed in the card text, or the notes.